2 • DW Weekly (by Life at 2004-07-19 03:29:43 GMT)
A nice edition of DW weekly, kudos to Robert and Ladislav.

I have one point to add regarding the standardisation of Linux, as far as I am concerned, although there would be some perceived benefits, I think the Linux community should not be held back with constraints such as those proposed. Yes, it may make the operating system more likely to succeed on the mass desktop market, but at what cost?

I am not a Debian user, but I share the viewpoint given out by many of them, Linux is about freedom of software, and the varied nature of Linux installs also has the added benefit of promoting varied setups and for the most part, escapes the monoculture trap Windows has fallen into, this could be a major assest to Linux security concerns should it become a major player in the desktop market.

Without starting packagewarfare here, I really dislike RPM's from my experience with them under Mandrake and Fedora, they have left me with countless headaches in the past. I really cannot see a way that a standardised package format could be agreed upon between the major players, and I certainly don't believe it will come in the form of RPM's if it happens at all. Besides, variation with package management is a major factor that helps define one distribution's differences from another, the more you try to merge aspects such as this, the less reason there is to make new distributions and implement new and innovative ideas. As you mentioned, competetion is a good thing, when people stop competing with their products, they stop innovating, and that harms the consumer, the producer and the industry as a whole in my opinion.3 • Life's comments (by eedok at 2004-07-19 06:51:48 GMT)
Becoming more standard creates more competition, not destroying it, because that way there'd be less distro-specific utilities, and more focus on the way the utilities are used, and it also creates less problems for people who make software without a specific distro in mind. Standardisation is a good thing.4 • The number of different Linux Distros. (by mpwmedia at 2004-07-19 07:28:39 GMT)
The diversity of Linux is surely one of it's strengths. That way you can get a distro that will be good for the job you have in mind for it and your level of experience. Could it also be a weakness though that might hinder the breakthrough of Linux into the 'mainstream' as people not only have to choose between Linux and Windows but, assuming they choose the former, then have to choose between a bewildering array of versions?5 • LSB & RPM (by Penguin on 2004-07-19 08:11:39 GMT)
It is quite obvious that RPM doesn't help standardizing Linux package management. It hasn't done it in the past and it will hardly do it in the future. LSB should drop the need to conform to one package type (RPM) from its guidelines, and concentrate on more relevant things.

Sometimes LSB also seems like it is too much promoting a few big distros only. That is hardly a way of getting the support of all the rest of the Linux world (nor a succesful attempt to throw the non-LSB-conforming competitors out of market).

LSB has potential though, of course. But I just hope that a few over ambitious and greedy marketers and businessmen (of certain big distributions) don't make its potential nonexistent in the long run?6 • Standardization is good (by Steve at 2004-07-19 08:16:17 GMT)
Standardization is a very good thing. For example, just think if everyone thought their own HTML-like language was the best so everyone made their websites in non-standard languages... web browsers would either have to support many languages or you'd only be able to view a limited portion of the WWW. We don't have to deal with that because HTML is the standard. A standard base for all Linux distros is a good idea.7 • bootable grub floppy (by mrbass at 2004-07-19 09:00:40 GMT)
best is GAG http://gag.sourceforge.net/....you can install it from the free http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/ makes it super simple to install and install your multiple OS's on.8 • On standardization (by Avdibeg at 2004-07-19 09:16:58 GMT)
As many other readers, I agree that the Linux community desperately needs some kind of standardization. I mean, look at the Windows - one can say a lot about its security, stability, speed etc., but its one major strenghth is one standard, which helped to its great accessibility and usability. Linux needs one standard - now!9 • About bootloaders (by ageox at 2004-07-19 09:17:31 GMT)
Quote

XOSL is a graphical boot manager released by Geurt Vos under GPL. XOSL can dual boot over 30 various operating systems on a single disk.

Unquote

It's not strictly a substitute to a bootloader, which is still required for each OS installation, but takes all the setup work for dual (or more) booting onto its shoulders in a very easy way. It's graphical, has mouse support and inbuilt setup. It also has quick and easy support for partition hiding (ever tried to boot Windows from hdb?)

I warmly recommend a look - link below.

http://www.ranish.com/part/xosl.htm10 • On standardization (by Avdibeg at 2004-07-19 09:17:58 GMT)
As many other readers, I agree that the Linux community desperately needs some kind of standardization. I mean, look at the Windows - one can say a lot about its security, stability, speed etc., but its one major strenghth is one standard, which helped to its great accessibility and usability. Linux needs one standard - now!11 • another freebsd (by sundar on 2004-07-19 10:25:17 GMT)
We have seen how Linux distributions competed each other and became more mature in few years.

I guess similar competition is needed in Freebsd to bringout the best. So far, as a newbie, who toys with different distros, I like Freebsd can be more newbie friendly. After seeing the ease of installation and custom packages in Linux distros, I guess it can be done in Freebsd also. I like to see bsd distro's coming out like Linux.

One important new Freebsd distro to watch is DragonFlyBsd. It strive for advanced features without compromise. Congradulations for those DragonFlyBSD developers!12 • Distroitis (by Aussie on 2004-07-19 11:13:12 GMT)
As much as I don't view Distroitis as a bad thing as I, like most here, are OS whores who like to see whatever's new on the scene.

Not a good thing for the overall Linux community imho.

I'd prefer less Linux distro's and for the efforts to be put into the top 50 distro's - not spead insanly over 600 odd...13 • Standardisation (by Uncle Fester at 2004-07-19 11:26:56 GMT)
Linux does not need (nor ever has needed) standardisation. While it's beneficial for different distros to be able to cross-pollinate, it's not a necessary criterion for success of the OS. What *is* needed is good documentation and information across the distros (big up Distrowatch for its role here) and continued development activity by users (hopefully this can be relied on for the foreseeable future - at least until a better solution than Linux comes along). One of Linux's greatest strengths lies in its ability to evolve by occasional forking and survival of the fittest. Standardisation is actually likely to weaken it in this area.

So long as there are interested hobbyist coders, Linux will continue to grow. For Linux to go mainstream, using Linux must be easy but that's more about catering to 'Joe Sixpack' than deciding on an arbitrary single standard. Windows scores highly not because of de facto standardisation but because it is designed to be usable by computer illiterates. Between that and some hardcore marketing, Windows has become the 'standard' OS for general desktop use.

There is a difference between an emergent standard and an arbitrarily imposed standard. As software matures, standardisation should emerge as the natural result of competition between forks. In any case, variety is important as it maintains flexibility. To impose a standard artificially risks forcing development to take the wrong branch of a fork and discourages developer participation. It could be the last thing Linux needs.14 • Slack (by Gstar on 2004-07-19 11:30:31 GMT)
Hi,

I tried SuSe 9.1 recently but I was disapointed to find out it has old version of gnome. I couldn't find any repository with 2.6.1 version so I gave up.

A few days later I noticed this nice Dropline Gnome system which is easy to install and update Gnome on lsackware. The only problem is that I'm sort of newbie and I don't want to wreck my bussines installation of Win xp.

Is there a distro based on slack with nice installer. I really want to use nice Dropline Gnome15 • Re: Slack (by Vectrox on 2004-07-19 12:27:22 GMT)
Slackware isnt difficult to install. You should try it first on VMware.16 • Linux Standards Base (by Tim at 2004-07-19 12:40:01 GMT)
By going off on RPMs, the article missed the point of having standards for Linux. The Linux file system needs standardization so that developers can write programs that will work with all complying distros. How is a program to find a file it needs if every distro places the file in a different place? Anyway, RPM is just a SUGGESTION of the LSB for a package manager. Settle down people.17 • why linux should be one... (by maceto on 2004-07-19 12:47:44 GMT)
security and not inventing the wheel 2-3 times, that is a bug on debian could be a bug on fedora etc.. a security patch can come out faster on one distro vs another... get the point..18 • Many Distros.... (by Lord-Storm on 2004-07-19 12:56:42 GMT)
At least the kernal hasnt been fork-ed though some times I wish it did.. Personaly Linux is starting to become unfriendly with windows NTFS. Suse & ark Linux destroys my SP4 kernal. Shame...

Not many BSD's Out there but a few would be good. Too many is sometimes a bad thing when there are so many development distros Shouting for help. Aries linux formaly JAMD has grinded to a slow down due to developers leaving.

Patents have destroyed FC2 (Free and non Free dont play nice.)Im sorry but im not going to re-rip my 2000 songs from CD all again.19 • RPM as a standard (by koorek at 2004-07-19 13:13:15 GMT)
IMHO there's no difference in pakcage format (there're just archives with some extra info about package). The important thing is how these packages are managed. E.g. PLD Linux Distribution has outstanding poldek (there's also apt-rpm) so upgrade, installation with dependency check is normal way to manage my distro. Other thing is how these packages are prepared. PLD Linux (IMHO the best rpm based distro - but not for newbies) has really good set of packages. There're prepared much better than in Mandrake, Fedora or SuSE.

PS. Sorry if I made some mistakes, my english skill is not good.20 • Easy to install slack with dropline (by Joel Ebel at 2004-07-19 14:27:51 GMT)
Gstar, I can't say I've tried it, but Vector linux is a slackware based distro with Dropline Gnome included. It might be worth a try if that's what you're looking for.

http://rpm.livna.org22 • Re: GRUB To The Rescue (by Geoff on 2004-07-19 16:23:29 GMT)
Here's a simpler method to restore your MBR that has worked for me. Some distros (e.g., Redhat) have a rescue mode on the first install CD. Boot using the rescue mode or boot using a live CD such as Knoppix. Your main Linux installation may already be mounted (possibly under /mnt/sysimage for Redhat rescue mode). If not you will need to mount it. Then do:

"Begs the question" is properly used only in the context of discussing or criticizing an argument, and means "to (tacitly) assume the conclusion in one or more of the steps of the argument." This internet misusage is getting to be as bad as spelling "lose" as "loose."

As for Slackware (review of 7/19), I don't care to see any more reviews of Slackware as a desktop distro which do not address the difficulty of installing and getting working properly anti-aliased truetype fonts. IIRC, your own excellent review of Slackware 9.1 mentions but does not solve this problem. Good font rendering is essential, not optional, for anything which has pretensions to be a desktop distro.

If any wannabe reviewer is out there and reads this, do us all a favor. Install (if necessary) and launch Abiword, nedit, gvim, kate, thunderbird, firefox, Konqueror, gimp, ghostscript (among others). If all of these work properly with good anti-aliased truetype fonts, then write a how-to or a review which shows us how you did it. While you're at it, if you have a laptop, show us how you got your wireless card, dvd/cdrw drive, printer, and flashdrive working.

If someone solves all these problems, and it turns out not to be too complicated (e.g., you DONT have to recompile freetype.), then I'll be on board soon after. Reviews or articles which fail to address these questions are misleading and mostly a waste of the reader's time.24 • BSDs (by anon at 2004-07-19 19:20:43 GMT)
I think it would be important to clarify a distinction when comparing Dragonfly vs. the BSDs and LinuxDistroX vs the Linux Distros in that there is a significant difference in the implemenation at the kernel level that the Dragonfly developers want to pursue. As far as Linux goes, *all* the distros use the same kernel, the difference is largely packaging (RPMs, apt ...) or some niche (Newbie distro, Live CD distro ...).

I don't see much "forking" of Linux at the kernel level. You can patch it with performance optimizations for certain applications, but I don't know of any living fork like Dragonfly.

It's also interesting to see a particular application of OS theory in production as opposed to merely reading about it in a textbook.

Others closer to this project may have some additions/corrections to my comments above.25 • Don't know where else to put this (by Anonymous on 2004-07-19 20:29:13 GMT)
The link to the DeLi linux homepage seems to be dead.26 • LSB et al (by Mike on 2004-07-19 23:00:33 GMT)
The FHS or Filesystem Hierarchy Standard is essential to the interoperation of POSIX systems and is widely accepted by distro and software developers alike.

There are two levels of software compatability: source and binary. POSIX, the single UNIX specification, FHS and so on provide source level compatability which makes it easy(ish) for programs written for i386 Linux to compile on *BSD, Mac OS X, Solaris and so on. Even on Windows, although Microsoft's lack of support for POSIX means Windows software is a bitch to compile on UNIX.

The LSB is about binary compatability - something that can be a little tricky. It means software written for i386 Fedora should run on i386 Debian, for example. The reason for specifying package management is so that software providers can simply provide LSB-RPMs for standard architectures, which could then be installed on any distro, with dependencies and unistalling dealt with.

In practice, no-one is providing LSB-RPMs. Instead, big projects like Mozilla and OpenOffice.org provide binary tarballs or installer programs that guide you through installation, much like Window's Install-Shield Wizard (that used to give me so much joy ). They avoid having many uncommon dependencies so they run out-of-the-box on most systems. The LSB does help, by specifying standard interfaces to shared libraries - potentially sparing us from the notourious problems of glibc version changes.

Personally, I think package management could be standardized but hasn't been yet because no-one has found the best solution.

As for those who say Linux shouldn't be standardized - it always was. How else do all these programs dance together without breaking faster than Windows 95? Until now we have had de-facto standards. Mostly, the LSB merely formalizes those. Where it goes beyong that remit, people just ignore it and do what they like. That's free software for you!27 • DragonFlyBSD (by Haldir on 2004-07-19 23:15:13 GMT)
Pretty poor start. Their first release had a bug that allowed the installer to wipe out partitions on the hard drive that weren't supposed to be wiped.28 • RE: why linux should be one... (by Peter Damoc at 2004-07-20 10:27:59 GMT)
"inventing the wheel 2-3 times" are you kidding? the wheel gets reinvented a lot more :) if it would only have been 2 or 3 times that would have been great.... In my view... people should start over :) and create a layered system for GUIs because GUIs are the problem.a nice standard renderer,a tookit with basic widgets,a set of mega-widgets (think Gecko and friends)a glue layer for putting the widgets together (python would be nice)Apps created with sound MVC architecture.... This way an interface would become nothing more than a script (think small downloads) and updates to the core widgets would benefit every single app.as for the package management... I would like to see people advocate the benefits of current package management systems over ZeroInstall.http://zero-install.sourceforge.net/index.html29 • Re:System Commander (by fizzol on 2004-07-20 11:22:12 GMT)
>anybody remember System Commander which sold for US$99?

I still use System Commander. I find it very reliable and use it in preference to any other boot loader.30 • Standardization is needed... (by CharlieJ at 2004-07-20 19:44:36 GMT)
As a long-time and experienced MS user who is trying to go to Linux, I agree with the standardization proponents.

I don't think anyone wants Linux to end up a Windows clone. However, standardization of core filenames, locations and installation components would be a great way to gain popularity amongst those who have only known Windows. It would lend familiarity to the process of switching to Linux -- and that would go along way towards gaining ground with "mainstream" PC users.

Right now, the options are TOO widely varied. For me, I've put off installing ANY distro of Linux because there are sooooo many to choose from -- I have no idea where to start. Yeah, I know -- pick one you like and use it. But when there are 50+ popular distros, there is no good way to choose ONE to try. I have no desire to install ten and then choose one either. The ONLY way I've narrowed the field of candidates is through forums and the info on Distrowatch.com.

Back to standards -- I truly believe standardization would help programmers realize their overlap -- thus resulting in a pooling of efforts, better distros and a smaller number to seriously consider -- which is a GOOD thing from where I sit. ;-)31 • LSB & RPM - 2 (by Penguin on 2004-07-20 22:37:09 GMT)
Yeah, of course, Linux standards are a good thing and very much needed - especially when the main goal is what benefits users. Business goals in standardization are ok too, as long as they don't favor a few big players only, and don't restrict innovation, competition and development.

As to RPM, it is true that RPM is an ok package format in itself, but IMHO far from being the perfect Linux package standard for years to come. Also both Debian and Slackware package types are even older than RPM, AFAIK.

I also doubt how credible the following LSB statement is: "Supplying an RPM format package is encouraged because it makes systems easier to manage. " For example, managing third party RPM packages in Redhat or SUSE, with all the potental dependency problems, can be a real pain. What does the LSB specifications REALLY say about solving the notorious RPM & dependency hell issues?

LSB can and could do great things to promote Linux development - but unfortunatley I see some problems there too.32 • RE:English, Slackware, and fonts (by Mephisto on 2004-07-21 00:11:55 GMT)
In reference to True Type Fonts add: FONTPATH "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TF"to your xorg.conf? Abiword, firefox, knoqueror, and gimp can all use TTF if they are installed and. If further tweaking is needed create a local.conf on /etc/fonts

I own a laptop (2 actually) Wireless works, DVD/CDRW works, usb flash drive works, printer works. for that matter 1394 works, as does CF and SD. The only things I had to do is for one of the laptops install the IPW2100 driver (no problems) and configure CUPS. I am not saying that Slackware is for everybody, but if you don't mind reading the documentation it is not exactly difficult.

If you had stuck to the TTF argument I might have agreed more or less but I had not problems whatsoever with everything else you mentioned.33 • Progeny (by Mike on 2004-07-21 10:02:12 GMT)
Progeny Componentized Linux, which is based on Debian, has achieved LSB certification and they have provided patches to Debian stable and testing to make them LSB compliant.

better?35 • I just checked the www.distrowatch.com for dns problems. (by Anonymous on 2004-07-21 16:39:16 GMT)
;; Now linting www.distrowatch.com from www.domtools.com http://www.domtools.com/dlint/nph-dlint.cgi?zone=www.distrowatch.com"dlint;; Checking serial numbers per nameserver;; 104196140 ns.owlriver.com.;; 104196140 ns.herrold.com.;; All nameservers agree on the serial number.;; Now caching whole zone (this could take a minute);; trying nameserver ns.herrold.com.ERROR: no A records found.;; no subzones found below www.distrowatch.com., so no recursion will take place.;; dlint of www.distrowatch.com. run ending with errors.;; run ending: Wed Jul 21 09:14:40 MST 2004

======== www.dnsreport.com checking www.distrowatch.comWARN SOA Serial Number WARNING: Your SOA serial number is: 104196140. That is OK, but the recommended format (per RFC1912 2.2) is YYYYMMDDnn, where 'nn' is the revision. For example, if you are making the 3rd change on 02 May 2000, you would use 2000050203. This number must be incremented every time you make a DNS change. FAIL SOA REFRESH value WARNING: Your SOA REFRESH interval is : 86400 seconds. This seems very high. You should consider decreasing this value to about 3600-7200 seconds. RFC1912 2.2 recommends a value between 1200 to 43200 seconds (20 minutes to 12 hours, with the longer time periods used for very slow Internet connections), although some registrars may limit you to 10000 seconds or higher, and if you are using DNS NOTIFY the refresh value is not as important (RIPE recommend 86400 seconds if using DNS NOTIFY). This value determines how often secondary/slave nameservers check with the master for updates. A value that is too high will cause DNS changes to be in limbo for a long time.36 • BSD from scratch (by wouter at 2004-07-21 23:53:11 GMT)
It is quite common for more advanced BSD users to make world, as it's called. I guess this is a bit comparable to Linux From Scratch, in that it potentially rebuilds large parts of the system. Most popular (commercial) Linux distributions are very binary, with complex dependencies, and rebuilding a system is not an easy task - if it's at all possible. It's difficult to customise the software, if needed.

If distributions like Gentoo (mind you, I've never tried that one myself yet) with similar build systems and ports like BSD has, would have been popular from the start, then we would probably have less linux distributions, too. But complex package systems and for some distributions 'commercial influences' (semi-open development process or code, no easy way to locate source and any specific patches) made tinkering with some linux distributions very hard.37 • Reply to Slackware post (by wouter on 2004-07-21 23:59:32 GMT)
prairiedock: Slackware has always been something special, where you have to do some things yourself. Don't blame Slackware, blame yourself for making (apparently) a wrong choice. Different distro, different audience. There are many point-and-click distro's, and adding TTF fonts really isn't that hard.

GhostBSD is a user-friendly desktop operating system based on FreeBSD. The project's goal is to create an easy-to-use and familiar workspace that can be used at home or office and for data rescue. GhostBSD supports a number of popular lightweight desktop environments, including MATE, Xfce, LXDE and Openbox. It also provides FreeBSD's package management system, Apache's OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice, LibreCAD, and Eclipse/Anjuta development environments for C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Jala and Python.